(02-04-2022 11:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 10:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 09:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 09:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I didn't argue that. I don't think racial diversity n the bench is important. I think having jurists who will interpret the laws fairly and impartially according to what is in the laws is important, and Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Roberts, and Alito fit that bill. What i argued was that with those or any other racial/sexual limits, there would be some in the pool who were eminently qualified, which you suggested made the racial/sexual limiting OK. Turns out that for you it is only OK with certain races and/or sexes.
Good example of principles being situational for Leftists.


I'm reading what you are posting. Just don't agree with it. In principle, I think limiting the field according to race or sex is wrong, and you seem to think it is OK if the race is black and the sex is female. I think you are pursuing the wrong goals.



Where?

Where? Did you not type "but I think in that case you would be opposed to the racial/sexual filters, even to the point of calling them racist."

Your post is all over the place. You told me that I would be opposed to racial/sexual filters - I explained that the issue I would have with your hypothetical is that those filters are not being used in a way that makes them appropriate. They're only appropriate, IMO, if they enhance the diversity of the bench.

This is a really odd back and forth here, where you seem to be intentionally misrepresenting a really easy and simple opinion of mine so you can try and yell about how I'm only OK with this kind of selection for black women. At least you were closer to the mark when you said it was OK with certain races and/or sexes (which clearly makes sense, as it's only something I'm advocating for to enhance diversity on the bench).

We have different view points about the benefits of having a diverse bench in regards to race/gender. It's as simple as that, and that's an OK disagreement to have.

So you would not call limiting the search to white men racist? Good to know. Sorry I thought that you would think that was racist. So it is OK?

Certainly we disagree on the diverse bench. I think it is more important to have good experienced fair judges than ones of a certain race or sex. And won't the selection of another black slew the racial representation to where it is not proportional? Will we need to limit the next selection to bisexuals so that we get a 4.5-4.5 sexual split?

I think having racial or sexual requirements for jobs is wrong, whether the job is ER nurse or Supreme Court Justice. Do you also think we need limit the search for ER nurses to Asian men? They are very underrepresented.

Dude, the "good experienced fair judges" are a given.

How are you seriously still stuck on that?

Because *you* are the one that feels the overriding urge to paste over the racisal determinism with the act of differentiating between a 'fair and impartial black perspective' and a 'fair and impartial white perspective, perhaps.

Seriously, where are you seeing me paste over that?

I just believe that race/gender can impact one's perspective and understanding. I see no significant different between a "fair and impartial Californian perspective" vs a "fair and impartial Kansan perspective," or a "fair and impartial Catholic perspective" vs a "fair and impartial Jewish perspective."

Being fair and impartial is a paramount prerequisite, but let's be honest in recognizing that Justices can be fair and impartial AND come to different rulings on cases when given the exact same facts. And I imagine that along with one's education, one's former jobs, etc. that a lot of personal experiences play roles in how the cases play out in question and how a Justice comes to their decision. When one is intimately familiar with a topic at hand, I would expect one would be much better equipped to evaluate arguments around said topic.